The U.S. Should Oppose the Proposed U.N. Alliance of Civilizations

In recent years, a host of events have affected and strained
public perceptions between Islamic countries and the United States
and Europe. The more notable incidents include the terrorist
attacks on U.S. embas­sies in East Africa and the World Trade
Center, the 2004 Madrid train bombing, a major terrorist attack in
London, continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, riots over cartoon
portrayals of Muhammad, the con­flict between Hezbollah and
Israeli forces in Lebanon, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. The gen­eral public perception in the West is that
Muslims are fanatical, violent, and intolerant, while Muslims in
the Middle East see Westerners as selfish, immoral, greedy,
violent, and fanatical.[1]

To combat these tensions, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in
July 2005 proposed an Alliance of Civ­ilizations to "respond to
the need for a committed effort by the international
community--both at the institutional and civil society levels--to
bridge divides and overcome prejudice, misconceptions,
misperceptions, and polarization which potentially threaten world
peace."[2] The alliance was to be guided by a
"high-level group of eminent persons," selected by Annan in
consultation with the prime ministers of Spain and Turkey, that
would submit a report in late 2006 laying out recommendations and a
practical plan of action to overcome this divide.[3]

The Report of the High-Level Group is testament to the
limited value of such exercises by the U.N. Focused
ob­sessively on the failings of Western countries while largely
ignoring the faults of Muslim countries, it implic­itly
justifies constraining freedom of media, speech, and expression in
the name of halting "the spread of hatred resulting in
Islamophobia, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism" and proposes a dubious
agenda to "improve" non-Muslim media treatment of Muslims. The
report glosses over the underlying reasons behind the economic
problems of many Islamic countries in favor of a laundry list of
objectives.

Despite the report's dubious contributions, on December 18,
Secretary-General Annan recom­mended that the U.N. adopt and
implement its rec­ommendations.[4] Such action would do little
to improve relations between Western and Muslim countries but would
enshrine the Alliance of Civili­zations and a host of
supplementary bodies in the U.N. system.

The United States should oppose these proposals to give the
alliance a permanent mandate, establish a permanent funding stream,
and create new sup­porting mechanisms.

Origins of the Alliance of
Civilizations

Polling data support the general perception that mutual poor
regard between people in Western nations and those in Islamic
countries is a signifi­cant problem. For instance, the June
2006 Pew Glo­bal Attitudes Survey found that:

After a year marked by riots over cartoon por­trayals of
Muhammad, a major terrorist attack in London, and continuing wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan, most Muslims and Westerners are convinced
that relations between them are generally bad these days. Many in
the West see Muslims as fanatical, violent, and as lack­ing
tolerance. Meanwhile, Muslims in the Middle East and Asia generally
see Westerners as selfish, immoral and greedy--as well as
vi­olent and fanatical.[5]

The notion that the U.N. could somehow alleviate these poor
public opinions through international conferences dates back to the
Dialogue Among Civ­ilizations, a U.N. program that was first
proposed by Iran in 1998 and launched by Annan in 1999. In the wake
of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.N. decided to replace the dialogue with
the Alliance of Civilizations in 2005. Although former Iranian
Pres­ident Mohammed Khatemi, who initiated the Dia­logue
Among Civilizations, remains prominent,[6] Spanish Prime Minister
José Luis Rodríguez Zap­atero and Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan made the proposal to create the
alliance at the 59th U.N. General Assembly and were
subse­quently backed by former Secretary-General Annan.

The purposes of the Alliance of Civilizations are described
succinctly in the Report of the High-Level Group:

The Alliance seeks to forge collective politi­cal will and
to mobilize concerted action at the institutional and civil society
levels to overcome the prejudice, misperceptions and polarization
that militate against such a con­sensus. And it hopes to
contribute to a coa­lescing global movement which, reflecting
the will of the vast majority of people, rejects extremism in any
society.[7]

Annan assembled the High-Level Group of "emi­nent persons"
to guide this effort by meeting and drafting a report with
actionable recommendations by the end of 2006 for U.N. member
states to adopt. Upon receiving the report in late 2006, the
Secre­tary-General recommended that the U.N. adopt and
implement its recommendations:[8]

The Report's proposals--in the areas of poli­tics, media,
education, youth and migra­tion--comprise an action plan to
improve cross-cultural relations. Many of its
sug­gestions--such as media campaigns to fight discrimination,
or the critical review of edu­cational materials--seek to
foster tolerance and dispel stereotypes at the local and
indi­vidual levels....

So let us work together to transform this Report into action,
and let us work to strengthen and improve not any single society or
any one nation, but all of human civilization.

Annan's endorsement raises serious questions about his motives.
The report calls for establishing a High Representative for the
Alliance of Civilizations with a support office; a U.N.-financed
Forum for the Alliance of Civilizations; an Alliance of
Civilizations fund; and regional, national, and local Alliance
Councils. All of these recommendations would make the
alliance--currently just a temporary initia­tive sponsored by
Annan and some member states-- a permanent fixture in the U.N. with
accompanying bureaucracies, funding, and standing.

Annan's endorsement raises other concerns be­yond simply
embedding a pet project into the U.N. system. For instance, Annan
appointed his former deputy Iqbal Riza--who was deeply embroiled in
the Oil-for-Food scandal for allegedly shredding documents related
to the investigation--as Spe­cial Advisor of the
Secretary-General for the Alli­ance of Civilizations.[9]
Moreover, Annan is rumored to be one of the individuals being
con­sidered for the post of High Representative for the
Alliance of Civilizations.[10]

Thus, Annan's endorsement could directly benefit him and at
least one of his close associates. Annan has only reinforced this
impression since leaving office through his published writings in
support of the alliance.[11] Regardless of what happens with the
alliance, in the interest of minimizing the impression of
corruption or unprofessional conduct in the U.N., Annan and his
associates should not be appointed to positions that they had a key
role in creating.

The Disappointing Report

The report falls well short of its own goal of offer­ing a
"practicable program of action for states, inter­national
organizations and civil society aimed at promoting harmony among
societies."[12] Indeed, the report often simply endorses
ongoing initiatives. When it does offer analysis and
recommendations, they are burdened by biased perspective,
unaccept­able calls for restrictions on free speech, and a list
of objectives in place of a strategy to revive the eco­nomic
performance of Middle Eastern and North African nations.

Biased Perspective. The report's most egregious failing
is its one-sided treatment of the relationship between Western and
Muslim countries. With the exception of noting that terrorism is a
problem undermining relations with the West, the report
consistently treats the people in Islamic countries as victims of
depredations by Western countries and Israel. The governments of
Muslim countries for the most part are given a pass. The report
largely ignores that the Middle East and North Africa are blessed
with oil, enjoy a rich cultural and religious identity, and have
enjoyed independence from colonial pow­ers for decades. With
these advantages, the govern­ments in the region have only
themselves to blame for their unequal legal and economic treatment
of their female populations, their failure to implement policies
conducive to economic growth and job cre­ation, and the
prevalence of autocratic rulers.

In typical U.N. fashion, the report focuses obses­sively on
"the growing urgency of the Palestinian issue," which is judged "a
major factor in the widen­ing rift between Muslim and Western
societies." The report goes on to declare that "without a just,
digni­fied, and democratic solution based on the will of all
peoples involved in this conflict, all efforts--includ­ing
recommendations contained in this report--to bridge this gap and
counter the hostilities among societies are likely to meet with
only limited suc­cess." Yet the report merely offers the
recycled objective of a reinvigorated multilateral peace
pro­cess seeking "recognition of both the Palestinian and
Jewish national aspirations and...the establish­ment of two
fully sovereign and independent states living side by side in peace
and security." The report also pins its hope on a white paper to
acknowledge the "competing narratives of Palestinians and
Israe­lis" with the aim of providing a "level-headed and
rational analysis [that] would make it clear to the Palestinian
people that the price of decades of occu­pation,
misunderstanding and stigmatization is being fully acknowledged,
while at the same time contributing to exorcize the fears of
Israelis."[13]

These recommendations should sound familiar because most of them
have been part of the peace strategy for the past decade--a process
that has been less than successful. They also ignore the interest
of many Muslim governments in perpetuating the con­flict. As
acknowledged in the 2004 ArabHuman Development
Report, the Israeli "occupation [of Pales­tine] has also
given Arab regimes a pretext for post­poning internal
reform."[14] Moreover, despite the importance placed
upon the conflict in the report, the High-Level Group failed to
include a single represen­tative from Israel. However, it did
include nine indi­viduals from predominantly Muslim nations
among its 20 members, including the former president of Iran.
Notably, the current Iranian president has pub­licly called for
the destruction of Israel.

Meanwhile, the report downplays the fact that terrorist groups
such as al-Qaeda explicitly link their terrorist acts to Islam as
interpreted through the lens of an extremist ideology. Instead, the
report focuses on observations like:

[N]one of the world religions condones or approves the killing
of innocents. All pro­mote the ideals of compassion, justice
and respect for the dignity of life. However, in a wide range of
recent conflicts in many parts of the world religion has been
exploited to justify intolerance, violence and even the taking of
life.[15]

This may be true, but it is beside the point. The use of Islam
by terrorist groups is central to the ongoing deterioration of
relations between Western and Muslim nations and cannot be glossed
over.

In this regard, the report's failure to call upon Muslim
political and religious leaders to denounce religiously based
violence and intolerance, specifi­cally terrorism by Islamic
extremists, is a gross over­sight. Similarly, the report's
emphasis on "respect for religious monuments and holy sites" and
"teaching about religions" rather than emphasizing the need for
governments to remove existing obstacles to reli­gious freedom
is odd considering the severe restric­tions on religious
freedom in many countries of the Middle East and North Africa.[16]

Media Censorship. Another worrisome aspect of the report
is its implicit approval of constraints on freedom of expression
and the press. The report asserts that "[i]ncreased attention to
the responsibil­ity of the press need not, and should not,
detract from advocacy for the freedom of the press."[17]
How­ever, this assurance is weak in the face of the lengthy
recommendations for restraining media content and coverage. For
instance, the report concludes:

Assertions that Islam is inherently violent and related
statements by some political and reli­gious leaders in the
West--including the use of terms such as "Islamic terrorism" and
"Is­lamic fascism"--have contributed to an alarming increase in
Islamophobia which fur­ther exacerbates Muslim fears of the
West.[18]

The report counsels that:

[Western activists and governments should] avoid certain actions
that have negative re­percussions on debates taking place in
Mus­lim societies. Propagation by Western media and official
authorities of over-simplified ex­planations that either blame
Islam as a reli­gion or falsely pit secularists against
religious activists has a detrimental effect.[19]

The report goes beyond merely cautioning against untoward
statements by proposing a broad-based international campaign to
censor and influence media representations of Muslims that
includes:

Creating training programs in schools of jour­nalism to
widen "journalists' understanding of critical international
issues...and enhance their capacity to inform the public accurately
and in a balanced way."

Encouraging leaders in the fields of "academia, religion,
politics, civil society, and culture" to generate op-ed pieces,
commentaries, and video and audio statements to help deepen
intercul­tural understanding.

Directing greater resources toward media aimed at "improving
popular attitudes between different cultures," including
broadcasting during major events that attract world attention;
productions aimed at youth populations like video games,
car­toons, and Web sites; and producing TV series in multiple
languages to address historical, social, and psychological aspects
of relations among societies to foster mutual understanding.

Encouraging producers and script writers, par­ticularly in
Hollywood, to increase the "por­trayal of normalized Muslim and
other under-represented or negatively stereotyped commu­nities
in popular media."

Encouraging governments, media organizations, and civil society
to work together to prevent the Internet from being used and abused
to "dissem­inate racist stereotypes and intolerance that can
inspire hatred and violence" and instead develop initiatives to
promote the Internet as "an instru­ment of cross-cultural
dialogue."

Monitoring and reviewing media coverage of Islamic-Western
relations and rewarding efforts that "aim to improve coverage of
rela­tions between Muslim and Western societies."

Establishing a "risk fund" to "temper the market forces that
encourage sensationalistic and stereo­typed media and cultural
materials" and to com­pensate theaters, museums, publishers,
and other cultural venues for losses incurred when they
fea­ture media that "humanize and normalize the views of
populations in the West and in predom­inantly Muslim societies
about one another."[20]

It is doubtful that a politically correct media cam­paign
will overcome bitterness based on real, sub­stantive
differences. Moreover, the report's emphasis on altering Western
media products and content seems off target since the Pew Global
Attitudes sur­vey finds that:

[D]espite the deep attitudinal divide be­tween Western and
Muslim publics...the views of each toward the other are far from
uniformly negative. For example, even in the wake of the tumultuous
events of the past year, solid majorities in France, Great Britain
and the U.S. retain overall favorable opin­ions of Muslims....
On average, Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries are more
likely to associate Westerners with multiple negative traits than
vice versa.[21]

Considering the spate of protests and riots in Islamic countries
following publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed and an
academic commen­tary by Pope Benedict XVI, tolerance seems far
more lacking in the Muslim world than in the West. In spite of
this, the report virtually ignores the perva­sive constraints,
official or otherwise, on freedom of speech, expression, and the
press in many Islamic countries.[22]

Most troubling, however, is that all of these sug­gestions
would greatly increase government inter­vention in the media to
promote the above-cited agenda, presumably directed by the Alliance
of Civ­ilizations and its related officers and bodies as
pro­posed in the report. This course of action to encourage
some media coverage and discourage other media coverage to prevent
"negative repercus­sions" is an invitation to censorship that
is far more likely to undermine freedom of speech, expression, and
the press than it is to protect it.

Misdiagnosis of Problems in the Middle East. The report
notes a number of economic problems in Islamic countries, including
youth unemployment, lack of access to the Internet, persistent
poverty and global inequities, and migration to developed
coun­tries. The recommendations for resolving these
con­cerns are predictable and unlikely to work. The
recommendations include calls for convening and supporting "a
coalition of multilateral agencies and civil society
organizations...to pilot broad-based youth employment initiatives,"
"expanding access to education," and "expanding Internet access in
developing countries." They also call for "wealthier countries [to
meet] their commitments of increased investment in the developing
world, as this, together with good governance and capacity
build­ing efforts in developing countries, would help improve
economic conditions in those countries."[23]

The problem with these recommendations is that they are a wish
list rather than a strategy. They largely ignore the main reason
why countries in the Middle East have failed to develop or generate
jobs: namely, their governments' repressive economic policies.
Sound economic policies, the rule of law, and good governance are
essential to promoting economic growth, creating new jobs, and
reducing poverty. According to the 2007 Index of Economic
Freedom, published by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall
Street Journal, the Middle East-North Africa region has the
second lowest ranking on eco­nomic freedom. Sub-Saharan Africa
is the only region that ranks lower.[24] As the World Bank has
noted, "Middle Eastern nations with high youth unemployment rates
continue to thwart small and medium businesses with heavy legal
burdens and piecemeal reforms."[25]

Economic freedom and increased integration into the global
economy are urgently needed if the coun­tries of the Middle
East and North Africa are to experience the increased economic
growth and development that lead to job creation. However, the
report makes deceptive and inaccurate statements like "income
inequality has continued to rise in recent decades and current
studies indicate that increased integration into the world economy
has actually exacerbated the divergence in the economic growth of
countries."[26] Such statements are based on selective
data that ignore evidence that globaliza­tion has led to a
convergence of global incomes,[27] and they provide
irresponsible justification for developing countries to distance
themselves from international markets, which provide the surest
path to increasing economic growth, development, jobs, and economic
opportunity.

What the United States Should Do

The Alliance of Civilizations report offers little more than
platitudes, wishful thinking, one-sided analysis, faulty
justification for constraining freedom of expression, and
repackaged calls for increased assistance from Western countries.
Nonetheless, the report shamelessly urges the General Assembly to
incorporate the Alliance of Civilizations into the agenda of its
62nd session and to establish a litany of supporting councils,
representatives, forums, and funding to expand the work of the
alliance. Accord­ing to the Alliance of Civilizations:

[Former] UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General
Designate Ban Ki-moon, Spanish President Zapatero and Turk­ish
Prime Minister Erdoğan met at UN Head­quarters in New York
to discuss the follow-up to the Report of the AoC High-level Group.
They agreed that an implementation plan for the Report's
recommendations is to be drafted in the coming three months and
finalized upon the Secretary-General's nomi­nation of a High
Representative for the Alli­ance of Civilizations initiative.
Subsequently, Annan, Zapatero and Erdoğan held an
infor­mal meeting of the General Assembly to present the plan
for implementing the Alli­ance of Civilizations
recommendations.[28]

This three-month timeline would end in March 2007. Clearly, the
alliance's performance does not justify such expense, expansion of
U.N. bureaucracy, or radical expansion of U.N. authority to
restrict freedom of expression. Not even the report's sole
highlight--a repudiation of the targeting of non­combatants by
terrorists--can offset its overall weak­nesses or justify
American support.[29] In advance of the announced plan for
implementing the Alliance of Civilizations, the United States
should:

Call upon Muslim political and religious leaders to denounce
religiously based vio­lence and intolerance and to condemn
terror­ism by Islamic extremists.

Reject the report's implicit approval of con­straints on
freedom of expression and the press and clearly state that the
U.S. will not support any international campaign to manip­ulate
media coverage of Muslims. Encouraging some media coverage and
discouraging other media coverage to prevent "negative
repercus­sions" is an invitation to censorship that would
likely undermine freedom of speech, expres­sion, and the
press.

Insist that primary responsibility for the Mid­dle
East's economic and social problems lies with those governments in
the Middle East and North Africa that maintain policies that
preserve unequal legal and economic treatment of the female
population, retard economic growth and job creation, and repress
funda­mental religious and political freedoms. Efforts by the
international community or donor nations to assist developing
nations in the Mid­dle East and North Africa with these
problems will be futile unless those countries adopt poli­cies
that permit progress to occur.

Point out that sound economic policies, the rule of law, and
good governance are essential to promoting economic growth,
creating new jobs, and reducing poverty. The U.S. should urge
the countries of the Middle East and North Africa to adopt economic
freedom and pursue increased integration into the global economy if
they wish to experience the increased economic growth and
development that lead to job cre­ation and reduce poverty.

Oppose efforts to make the Alliance of Civili­zations a
permanent part of the U.N. and refuse to support the
establishment of support­ing councils, representatives, forums,
and funding to expand the work of the alliance. If individual
nations wish to continue their sup­port for the alliance
through voluntary contri­butions, that is their right, but
financial support should not be provided through assessed
con­tributions to the U.N. or its affiliated funds and
programs, nor should the alliance be awarded official status within
the U.N. system.

Oppose the nomination of Kofi Annan as High Representative
for the Alliance of Civili­zations on the basis of conflict of
interest. Annan and his close associates were instrumen­tal
in supporting creation of the Alliance of Civ­ilizations,
initiating the alliance report, and selecting those participating
in the High-Level Group, which recommended official status for the
alliance in the U.N. system and the creation of a number of new
positions and supporting bodies for the alliance. Regardless of
what hap­pens with the alliance, in the interest of
mini­mizing the impression of corruption or unprofessional
conduct in the U.N., Annan and his associates should not be
appointed to posi­tions that they had a key role in
creating.

Conclusion

The Alliance of Civilizations is a disappointment. Far from
offering a "bridge" to cross the divide, the Alliance of
Civilizations report offers little more than platitudes and wishful
thinking. The report's lack of substance and originality--it
acknowledges several times that many of its recommendations and
initiatives are already in place or being pursued-- explains the
lack of interest in the report since its release in November.

Despite failing to meet its objective, the Report of the
High-Level Group shamelessly calls for the Gen­eral
Assembly to incorporate the Alliance of Civili­zations as part
of the U.N. by establishing a litany of supporting councils,
representatives, forums, and funding mechanisms to expand its work.
Kofi Annan's petition for the U.N. to adopt these
recom­mendations raises serious questions about his motives
because he is rumored to be one of the indi­viduals being
considered for the post of High Rep­resentative for the
Alliance of Civilizations.[30]

In spite of Annan's continued attempts to pro­mote the
Alliance of Civilizations, there is scant jus­tification for
the proposed expense, expansion of the U.N. bureaucracy, and
expansion of U.N. authority in a manner that is likely to restrict
freedom of expression. Not even the report's sole highlight--a
repudiation of the targeting of noncombatants by terrorists--can
offset its overall weaknesses or jus­tify American support. To
the extent that the alli­ance's ideas prove useful, they are
neither unique nor dependent on the perpetuation of the alliance or
granting it official U.N. status. The U.S. should clearly refute
the report's false assumptions and biased perspective and oppose
any effort to make the alliance a permanent part of the U.N.

Brett D. Schaefer is Jay
Kingham Fellow in Inter­national Regulatory Affairs in the
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and
Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The
Heritage Foundation.

[3]U.N.
Alliance of Civilizations, Alliance of Civilizations: Report of
the High-Level Group, November 13, 2006, at www.unaoc.org/repository/HLG_Report.pdf
(February 15, 2007). Cited hereafter as Report of the High-Level
Group.

[16]Ibid., pp. 20, 26, 34, and 41, and
U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and
Labor, "Near East and North Africa," 2005 Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices, March 8, 2006, at www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/c17095.htm
(February 15, 2007).

[22]"Generally, media in the [Middle East and
North Africa] region remain constrained by extremely restrictive
legal environ­ments, in which laws concerning libel and
defamation, the insult of monarchs and public figures, and
emergency legislation continue to hamper the ability of journalists
to write freely." Indeed, the only nation possessing a free rating
in the region is Israel. Freedom House, Freedom of the Press
2006, at www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16
(February 15, 2007). For more information, see U.S. Department of
State, "Near East and North Africa."

[27]Based on his research on global income
distribution and poverty, economist Xavier Sala-i-Martin concludes
that "Looking at the planet as a whole, never in history has
poverty been eradicated so rapidly as it has been during our
lifetimes. Moreover, individual income inequalities have been
falling, and this is the first time they have fallen since the eve
of the Industrial Rev­olution. The aggregate numbers have never
looked better. Looking at the world distribution of income (WDI),
the world is a better place." See Xavier Sala-i-Martin, "Global
Inequality Fades as the Global Economy Grows," chap. 1, in Kane
et al., 2007 Index of Economic Freedom, p. 16.

[28]U.N. Alliance of Civilizations,
"Secretary-General Presents AoC Report at Informal Session of the
General Assembly," December 18, 2006, at www.unaoc.org/aoc.php?page=10&id=76
(February 16, 2007).

[29]"We must make it clear that, in our view, no
political end, whether arising from historical injustice or
contemporary prov­ocation, and whether committed by resistance
organizations, global militant groups, or by states, can justify
the targeting of civilians and non-combatants. Such actions must be
condemned unequivocally." U.N. Alliance of Civilizations, Report
of the High-Level Group, p. 16.

[30]Kuwait News Agency, "Annan Calls for Active
Effort to 'Discover What Is Best' in Other Beliefs."

Share

The U.N. High-Level Group report on the Alliance of Civilizationsoffers little more than platitudes, wishful thinking, one-sidedanalysis, faulty justification for constraining freedom ofexpression, and repackaged calls for increased assistance fromWestern countries. The United States should oppose proposals togive the alliance a permanent mandate, establish a permanentfunding stream, and create new supporting mechanisms.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."

Sign up to start your free subscription today!

Sorry! Your form had errors:

First name is not validLast name is not validEmail Id is not validZip code is not valid

About The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.

Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More